The "Netflixing" of American PoliticsOne of the criticisms commonly made towards US politics is the two-party system and how some voters complain that they don't have a candidate that lines up closely with their values. This is what I call the "Netflixing" of American politics. Netflix along w...

Will Shetterly: In my experience, intersectionalists ignore or downplay class. Often they'll give it lip service in an aside, then continue to talk like race or gender reductionists.

Will Shetterly: Which makes sense, because "intersectionality" was originally coined by Kimberle Crenshaw, a bourgeois black woman who was only interested in race and gender. Class came late to that discussion.

Will wrote:<i>I don't believe in sheepdog theory. I think lesser-evilists will vote for the lesser evil, and the rest of us [socialists who support Sanders] will vote for 3rd party candidates or stay home.</i>

Not voting for President and/or voting 3rd party ticket is an option for those who live in states that are solidly "red" or "blue." I understand that some feel the need to stay ideologically "pure."

However, for those who live in "swing states," the ethical decision is more challenging because there are real-life human consequences to one's presidential vote. The hypothetical "Clinton vs. Trump" decision that you minimize as a "lesser-evilist" decision affects people.

For example, if the GOP were to win, it's very likely that the Affordable Care Act will be repealed. That means a higher number uninsured citizens, worse health outcomes for some, and death for some due to a lack of timely health care.

paintedjaguar (James Thompson): It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "purity", so you can hold the insults, Steve. Supporting a lesser evil isn't just settling for half a loaf -- you're also going to be enabling things that are actively harmful. That's why it's called lesser EVIL. This applies to the Unaffordable Care Act as much as anything else, since you bring it up. I don't have the heart for that discussion right now (it's personal) but it's at least possible that repealing it would actually do the most good in the long run. However, if you're someone that is doing better under it, congratulations -- you won the healthcare lottery.

"Throwing your vote away" isn't some law of nature -- it's something that can be changed whenever enough people decide it's time to do so.

Will Shetterly: +James Thompson Since I said I agreed with Steve, I agree with you, too. Supporting the lesser evil should never be an automatic choice. If we want a better world, we have to oppose both evils every chance we can.

Steve Caldwell: +James Thompson -- Like I said, the decision about this really only applies in swing states due to the Electoral College system.

If you live in a solidly red or blue state, you can sit out the Presidential election or vote for a 3rd party candidate without having to worry too much about the ethics of your decision.

However, if you live in a swing state, a decision to not support the Democratic Party nominee (Clinton or Sanders) would take away my adult daughter's ACA health care coverage. She's a part-time college student with a part-time job. The ACA is providing her with low-cost insurance. Repealing it would hurt my child and that will happen if the GOP regains the White House.

And, if you live in a swing state, a decision to not support the Democratic Party nominee (Clinton or Sanders) would take away the ACA Medicaid expansion from working poor who don't qualify for the ACA subsidized marketplace insurance.

In Louisiana, we just elected a Democratic governor who is accepting the ACA Medicaid expansion that former Gov. Jindal rejected. In a few months, we will have over 400,000 people getting health care coverage and this coverage will go away if the GOP regains the White House.

In an ideal world, we would have a European-style single-payer health care system. But we don't live in that world. We have a Congress that wouldn't support single payer health care and it will take a massive shift in congressional representatives to get there.

So you need to ask if your distaste over Hillary Clinton is more important than the thousands of people who will die due to lack of health care coverage if the GOP wins and the ACA is repealed. Speaking as a father, I'm more concerned about my daughter's well-being than political purity.

Will Shetterly: Difference is I don't think they're equally annoying. I think the dogmatic ones are equally insistent that they're correct and the rest of us are wrong, but that's their right, of course.

I am developing a theory that the people who are most sensitive to charges of smugness are people who are very smug.

Will Shetterly: Before Huxley, atheism and theism were the only options in English. Now I find the third choice useful. I tend to like third choices.

Will Shetterly: Oh, but I agree the boundaries can be very soft. That doesn't mean they're irrelevant.

Randal Ott Espinoza: As with many things, it depends how you define "god", "knowledge", and "belief".

I self-identify as a theist because I worship something that I have chosen to call "God", among other names. The Germanic (including English) usage of this term descends through the Germanic language family from a Proto-Indo-European concept of "one for whom invocations are made" or "one for whom libations are poured" (*ǵʰuto), so it's sufficiently generic for my purposes and does not positively assert any attributes or qualities.

However, I also self-identify as agnostic because I do not claim to know that a being exists which matches any particular conception of Godhead or which would identify itself as "God", as ineffability and unknowability are aspects of the God I worship.

In short: As a self-identified agnostic theist, I would dispute this categorization.

Some time-saving tips for internet discussionsThere are many catchphrases and slang words that one hears on the internet and in the wider use outside the internet. Some of these slang words are creative and lead to improved communication. These words listed below are used by many to marginalize the c...

**Note - this is the text for a short talk that I gave on 31 August 2014 as part of a worship service for All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church in Shreveport, Louisiana . The podcast audio recording for this can be found here (my portion starts at the 9:10...